1. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 1 Ultimate Step and Penultimate Step LArTPC Costing Methodology Ongoing LArTPC R&D Summary LArTPC Design and Cost Considerations

2. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 2

3. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 3 Many large LNG tanks in service. excellent safety record Detector Tank based on Industrial Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) storage tanks

4. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 4

5. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 5 The Big Question: What is needed to take the Ultimate Step for Large Liquid Argon TPC Detectors? This begs a smaller question: What is the “Penultimate Step”?

6. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 6 The Ultimate Step Assumptions for beginning the ultimate step: –A timely, cutting edge physics justification Examples may be: Neutrino oscillations, proton decay, supernovae, etc –A project with well-understood technical capabilities and costs for a 50 to 100 kton TPC liquid argon detector –An international collaboration which proposes to international funding agencies locating one or more detectors: Under rock/dirt in Europe, the Americas, Asia or elsewhere On the surface anywhere on the planet (including in a neutrino beam)

7. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 7 The Penultimate Step – Part 1 Making the penultimate step assumes completion of: –A compelling physics case for the penultimate step and perhaps the ultimate step In the context of a globally coordinated neutrino physics program, which in turn requires An international collaboration in place with possible, but unapproved, funding sources for the ultimate detector, and –A credible schedule, which requires (see next slides): –A credible cost estimate, which requires (see next slides): –A demonstration of the engineering/technology (ICARUS / T600 is an existence proof of one approach) and the plausibility of the experimental physics capability for the Penultimate Detector

8. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 8 The Penultimate Detector(s) There may be many examples of a penultimate detector, but they all have these criteria: –A compelling physics experiment justifies the penultimate detector –The relationship of the penultimate detector to determining the costs and scalability of the technology to the ultimate detector must be clear. –The penultimate detector is part of a global neutrino physics program and likely requires international coordination and funding One example: 3 kton* LArTPC (nearly) on-axis in NuMI beam. –Physics Case ?? –theta_13, theta_23, mass hierarchy, other ? … –complementary to NOvA ??? –On the surface at Soudan ? (~1mrad off axis = “near on-axis”) * active mass

9. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 9 The Penultimate Step – Part 2 Making the penultimate step requires completion of: –A credible schedule, which includes: Time for peer reviews, lab reviews, and government approvals Completion of R&D for the engineering/technology and physics capability required for the penultimate detector Time for construction and operation of the penultimate detector –A credible cost estimate, which requires: A technical design to accomplish the physics A credible schedule Engineers and project management techniques Perhaps a clear cost scaling to the ultimate detector

10. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 10 Cost methodology … –The cost estimate will be used to … Identify large costs (and cost uncertainties) which might be reduced by –technical R&D including more detailed engineering designs or –getting information which is closer to firm quotes from vendors Increase costs to reduce risk or improve technical performance or to advance/stretch the schedule (for whatever reasons) Identify all tasks (i.e., costs) by using a WBS Compare to other techniques and approaches (e.g. Water Cherenkov, surface vs. below ground, etc.)

11. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 11 History: What has been done? ICARUS –Allocated ~$20M for 1.2 kton (actually 20M Euros) Math gives: ~17M$/kton or ~830M$/50 kton And math gives: a factor of ten cheaper would be ~83M$/50kton This is an “experience based” cost estimate. This is not a cost done by DOE accounting.

12. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 12 History: What has been done? Caution: Bridge Out There is much more to this than “math”. Use of cost numbers in this talk without contextual protection may reduce your credibility November 7, 1940, at approximately 11:00 AM, Tacoma Washington

13. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 13 History: What has been done? ICARUS –Allocated ~$20M for 1.2 kton (actually 20M Euros) Math gives: ~17M$/kton or ~830M$/50 kton And math gives: a factor of ten cheaper would be ~83M$/50kton This is an “experienced based” cost estimate. This is not a cost done by DOE accounting. LArTPC NuSAG submission –$57.45M for 15 kton Math gives: 3.8M$/kton or ~190M$/50kton This is not an “experience based” cost estimate. This is not a cost done by DOE accouonting. NuSAG response –See next slide

14. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 14 NuSAG February 28, 2006

15. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 15 NuSAG Submission Costs 15 kton

16. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 16 NuSAG LArTPC Cost Pie 15 kton

17. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 17 Schedule The LArTPC schedule in the NuSAG submission allowed our Director a moment of levity. –The DOE approval process was not included. The work on the schedule for the (Pen)Ultimate detector is just starting

18. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 18 Next cost steps (1) Methodology and archeology –“Include project management” items so that the Directorate can compare LArTPC costs to other DOE-costed competitors for the funds. –“Get ICARUS costs directly from INFN” so we can benefit from their experience and relate “Italian cost accounting” to “DOE cost accounting” so one can better specify what NuSAG meant by “about an order of magnitude” less What does “cost” mean? It means: –DOE defensible

19. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 19 Next cost steps (2) Some informative specific design choices –3 kton … three 15 kton … 30 ktons … 50 kton … 100 ktons … what else? … and what experiments drive these choices?

20. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 20 A sampling of LArTPC R&D paths Big Tank R&D (see next slides) –Purity Test Station to qualify materials for big tank –Achieving required argon purity without vacuum and clean room techniques Cellular TPC design (see next slides) Cold electronics (see next slides) –Allows one to use shorter wires –Costs money D > H Tanks (like GLACIER) –Allows use of shorter wires –Less efficient use of argon, more electronic channels needed Design Against Cosmic Rays –Go underground! –Use plane spacing less than 3 meters, use shorter wires (see above) –Is this really an issue, or just a worry?

21. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 21 LArTPC: Purity Test Station Setup at PAB (Proton Assembly Building) at Fermilab A test station to study (a) the contamination of LAr by various materials and (b) the efficacy of various ‘filters’ for the removal of oxygen (and other electronegative species) Mostly recycled equipment In May 2006, we achieved a purity which scales to a 3 meter drift with a 20% loss of electrons.

22. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 22 LArTPC: Purging a “big” tank The “Village water tank” has a volume the same as ~1,000 tons of liquid argon (1.40 g/cm 3 ). It was part of the village of Weston. The intention is to use it to challenge models of purging tanks with a “piston” of argon gas.

23. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 23 Large Tank Design

24. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 24 LArTPC 50KT (wire plane section) CHIMNEY SPACE CHIMNEY Deck supported from the dome Wires in plane (+20º,-20º, 0º) SUPPORT TUBE DOMEWARM DECK

25. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 25 A Clever Wire Layout +”α” layout -”α” layout Vertical layout Ground layout Drift } “Half” wire layout We can cover the full chamber area, while bringing all signals out at the top surface.

26. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 26 Cellular Detector, Top View

27. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 27 Cellular TPC design Cellular TPC design (see next slides) –Allows construction of TPC modules away from detector location –Allows for construction of much of TPC in parallel with tank –Still requires assembly at the site of course

28. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 28 Cold Preamplifiers for the next LArTPC?* Signal to noise (S/N) is a major challenge for a large LArTPC. Preamps in the cryostat promise significant improvements in S/N For cold preamps in the next large LArTPC, R&D must start soon ! A few of the R&D issues: –Address Argon contamination by design and testing of hermetic seals, and tests of individual components (for additional insurance) –Investigate compromises between cost and complexity of high density packaging for LArTPC wire pitch/plane spacing = 5 mm/5 mm –Find practical limit of increased power dissipation to yield lower S/N –Design specific preamplifier mounting, wire mechanical fixtures and electrical connections –Find and test solutions for distribution of power, bias voltage, and test pulses, and routing of output signal cables to feed-through ports –Invent a way to perform tests before closing the cryostat In general, establish confidence that cold preamps will be successful *Slide Provided by Carl Bromberg, MSU

29. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 29 Building confidence in cold preamps* Cold preamps used in ATLAS (LAr endcap hadronic calorimeter, and purity monitors), NA48 (LKr calorimeter), and considered for others. Obvious differences in freq. response, S/N, purity requirements Some University electronics groups (e.g., MSU) have cold preamp expertise from work for IR Astronomy and CMP experiments Commercial resources exist: –www.extremetemperatureelectronics.com (consulting engineers)www.extremetemperatureelectronics.com –www.cryocircuits.com, www.cryoconnect.com (companies doing cold electronics)www.cryocircuits.comwww.cryoconnect.com Need to design, build and test a few hundred channels of cold preamps and obtain a defensible cost estimate A LArTPC test facility is being constructed at Fermilab. It will be commissioned with a few hundred channels of warm electronics with tests of cold preamps to follow Acceptance of cold preamps must precede final design of LArTPC refrigeration, signal/power ports, cable choice, wire planes, etc. Very large LArTPC (50 kT) may not be possible without cold preamps *Slide Provided by Carl Bromberg, MSU

30. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 30 What about “many, small” tanks? Is it not obvious that there are added costs for the “many small” approach? Yes … (see next slides) … but –How much is not used efficiently and –What does the increased cost buy?

31. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 31 LArTPC 50KT. (section B-B) DRIFT SPACE Cathode planes Wires planes Liquid Argon: Total-59,000 tons Active-47,500 tons Note: 47.5 / 59.0 = 0.805

32. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 32 Fraction left after removing d = h fraction = [ 1 – 2 d / D ] 3 Note: 47.5 / 59.0 = 0.805 x

33. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 33 “Many, Smaller” Tanks What does the increased cost buy? –Reduction in risk by having shorter wires … but how short is short enough? –“Obvious” control of systematics … but how well does a single large detector need to control systematics? –Allows for staging of data taking … and reducing technical risks by proving / improving the capability of the prototype –Reduces catastrophic risks by not having all the “eggs in one basket” (i.e., the one TPC in one Tank).

34. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 34 Summary LArTPC Detector Designs and Costing –Ultimate … Penultimate … on going R&D Reasons for the Penultimate Detector: –Physics case(s) for Penultimate and Ultimate Detectors –Demonstrate scaling of costs and technology to Ultimate Detector –Development of international collaboration and funding sources required for Ultimate Detector LArTPC group is in an R&D stage

35. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 35 Backup

36. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 36

37. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 37 Diameter (= Height) vs. Argon Mass

38. David Finley / LongBaseLine Study / June 27, 2006 @ Fermilab Slide 38 Liquid Argon TPC Overview for NuSAG Note: At this point in time … “15” could be “50” “1” could be “3” etc The optimum choices depend on the goals. Submitted to NuSAG Summer 2005 Fermilab plus 6 universities